Editorial Ethics

The editorial board of the journal “WEB OF SCIENCE AND ACADEMIC RESEARCHER” specifies certain requirements for the selection and acceptance of articles submitted to the editorial office of the journal.

The editorial board was guided by the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE, http://publicationethics.org), as well as by the experience of foreign and Ukrainian professional associations, scientific organizations and editorial departments.

The essential feature of the professional scientific association is the adoption of the Code by scientists and specialists, which sets the basic standards of conduct and responsibilities of the association members in relation to each other and to the public. Such a Code is defined by the desire to maximize the benefit for the professional association and limit the actions that could serve the egoistic interests of particular individuals, as well as to ensure the intellectual property right of each author.

Ethical obligations of the journal editors

  1. All materials submitted for publication are carefully reviewed and selected. The editorial board reserves the right to reject the article or return it for enhancement. The author is obliged to enhance the article in accordance with the comments of the reviewers or the editorial board.
  2. The editor is obliged, without any prejudice, review all manuscripts submitted for publication, evaluating each one properly, regardless of race, religion, nationality, status or working place of the author (s).
  3. The editor must review the manuscripts submitted for publication within the shortest possible time.
  4. All the responsibility for accepting or rejecting the manuscript lies with the editor. A responsible and well-reasoned approach in performing of these requirements usually means that the editor takes into account the recommendations of the reviewer, doctor of sciences of the relevant scientific field, regarding the quality and reliability of the manuscript submitted for publication. However, manuscripts may be rejected without being reviewed if the editor finds them unsuitable to the journal
  5. The editor and the editorial staff are not allowed to disclose any information concerning the contents of the manuscript under review to other persons, except those who are involved in the professional evaluation of this manuscript. After the positive editor’s decision, the article is published in the journal and posted in the relevant electronic resources.
  6. The editor must respect the intellectual independence of the authors.
  7. If the author of the submitted manuscript is the editor himself, the responsibility and the rights of the journal editor must be delegated to any other qualified person.
  8. If the editor is presented any convincing evidence that the main contents or conclusions of work published in the journal are inaccurate, the editor should administer the publication of the relevant message indicating this mistake and, if possible, correct it. This message may be written by the person who found the mistake, or by an independent author.
  9. The author may require not to involve particular reviewers in reviewing the manuscript. However, the editor may decide to involve some of these reviewers if he finds their opinion important for the impartial review of the manuscript. Such a decision can be made, for example, in case of serious contradictions between this manuscript and the previous work of the potential reviewer.

Ethical obligations of authors

  1. The main responsibility of the author is to provide an accurate report on the research conducted, as well as the objective discussion of its significance.
  2. The journal content is a limited resource, so the author must use it reasonably and economically.
  3. The primary report of the research results should be sufficiently complete, and contain the necessary references to the available sources of information so that the specialists of this field could repeat this work. If required, the author should make reasonable efforts to provide other researchers with the samples of unusual materials that cannot be obtained in any other way, with the corresponding agreements on the transfer of materials that limit the use of such materials in order to protect the legitimate interests of the authors.
  4. The author should quote those publications that have decisively influenced on the nature of the work presented, as well as those that can quickly introduce the reviewers to some earlier works important for understanding of this research. With the exception of reviews, you should minimize quoting works that are not directly related to this work. The author is required to conduct a literary search to find and quote original publications that describe the research, closely related to this work. It is also necessary to specify the sources of material of essential importance used in this work, if these materials were not obtained by the author.
  5. The work should clearly indicate any dangerous consequences and risks connected with the research.
  6. The fragmentation of the research results should be avoided. A scientist who carries out extensive research of a system or group of related systems should arrange the publication in such a way that each part of the report gives a complete report on each aspect of the general research.
  7. When preparing a manuscript for publication, the author must inform the editor of related manuscripts of the author, submitted or accepted for publication. Copies of these manuscripts should be submitted to the editor, and their relations with the manuscript submitted for publication should be indicated as well.
  8. The author should not submit manuscripts, describing the same results, to more than one journal in the form of a primary publication, unless it is a repeatedly submitted publication, previously rejected by a journal or revoked by the author. It is allowed to submit the full report that expands the previously published short preliminary report (notice) about the same work. However, when submitting such a manuscript, it is necessary to inform the editor of an earlier report, and this earlier report must be quoted in the full report.
  9. The author must clearly indicate the sources of all quoted or presented data, with the exception of the well-known information. Information received privately during the conversation, in correspondence or during discussions with the third parties, should not be used or reported in the work of the author without the permission of the researcher from whom this information was received. Information obtained while the confidential services providing, for example, while reviewing manuscripts or projects submitted for grants, should be treated in the same way.
  10. Experimental or theoretical research may serve as the basis for criticizing the work of another researcher. The published articles may contain such criticism. Personal criticism, however, is not considered relevant in any circumstances.
  11. Co-authors of the article should be all the persons who have made a significant scientific contribution to the work presented and who share the responsibility for the results. Other contributions should be noted in the notes or in the “Acknowledgements” section. Administrative relations to the research are not considered to be the basis for qualifying the person as co-author (but in certain cases the notification of the significant administrative assistance in the research may be appropriate). Persons, who died, and who satisfy the above-mentioned criteria, should be included in the list of authors, and the date of their death should be indicated in the notes. The fake names of an author or co-author cannot be specified. The author, representing the manuscript for publication, is responsible for including in the list of co-authors only those who meet the criterion of authorship. As for the article written by several authors, – the author who provides the contact information, documents and is in correspondence with the editors, claims responsibility for the other authors’ consent for its publication in the journal.
  12. The authors must inform the editor of any potential conflicts of interest, such as the consulting or financial interests of any company, that might be affected by the publication of the results containing in this manuscript. Authors should ensure that there are no contract relationships or property issues that could affect the publication of the manuscript submitted.

Ethical obligations of reviewers

  1. Since the review of manuscripts is an essential stage in the publication process and, thus, in the scientific method implementation as such, each scientist is required to perform a certain amount of work in reviewing.
  2. If the selected reviewer is not sure that his qualification complies with the level of the research, presented in the manuscript, he must immediately return the manuscript.
  3. The reviewer must objectively evaluate the quality of the manuscript, the experimental and theoretical work submitted, its interpretation and presentation, as well as to consider the level of correspondence to high scientific and literary standards. The reviewer must respect the intellectual independence of the authors.
  4. The reviewer must take into account the possibility of conflict of interests if this manuscript is closely related to the submitted or published work of the reviewer. If there are doubts, the reviewer must immediately return the manuscript without reviewing, pointing out a conflict of interest.
  5. The reviewer should not evaluate the manuscript if he has any personal or professional relationships with the author or co-author, and if such relationships may affect the evaluation of the manuscript.
  6. The reviewer must treat the manuscript, submitted for the review, as a confidential document. The manuscript should not be displayed to other persons or discussed with other colleagues, with the exception of the special cases where the special advice is needed.
  7. Reviewers must adequately explain and rationalize their comments so that the editors and authors could understand the basement of the remarks. Any statement of the previous publication of the observation, conclusion or argument has to be followed by a relevant reference.
  8. The reviewer should mark the cases of insufficient quotation of other scientists’ works directly related to the research in review; it should also be taken into account that comments on insufficient quotation of their own works may look prejudiced. The reviewer should indicate to the editor any significant similarity between the manuscript in review and any published article or any manuscript submitted simultaneously to another journal.
  9. The reviewer must provide the feedback in time.
  10. Reviewers should not use or disclose any unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations containing in this manuscript without the author’s permission. However, if such information indicates on the ineffectiveness of the reviewer’s own research, the termination of such reviewer’s work is not contrary to ethical standards.
Scroll Up